New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Are Attorney’s Fees and Not Just Costs Awardable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d) for a Prior Action That Was Voluntarily Dismissed and Based on Or Including the Same Claim Against the Same Defendant? — Circuit Split

Download PDF

Raniolo v. Southport, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116047 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 1, 2015):

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Petition and Request for Attorneys' Fees and Costs [ECF No. 24] and Defendants' Memo of Costs [ECF No. 29].

I.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This lawsuit originated when Plaintiff Mary Raniolo ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendants Southport, LLC, Gary L. Allen, and Garik Allen ("Defendants") alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq, and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL"), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.500 et seq. The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and awarded actual damages, and liquidated damages. The Court held Plaintiff was entitled to attorneys' fees and costs as required in the statute and Defendants were entitled to attorneys' fees and costs for any duplicative legal work due to the dismissal of Plaintiff's state case and refiling in federal court.

II.  ANALYSIS

A. Plaintiff's Attorneys' Fees and Costs

Plaintiff seeks $45,080.00 in attorneys' fees and $1,173.35 in costs. Plaintiff's attorneys' fees were calculated using the lodestar method. Plaintiff seeks $350.00 per hour for Daniel Craig and Russel Riggan and $275.00 per hour for Samuel Moore. Plaintiff is seeking reimbursement for 135 hours. [*2]

Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and § 290.527 of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. To determine a reasonable attorney's fee, a court multiplies the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 564 (1986). The product of this calculation is "presumed to be the reasonable fee to which counsel is entitled" when the attorney has shown the claimed rate and number of hours are reasonable. Id. The "novelty and complexity of the issues, the special skill and experience of counsel, the quality of representation, and the results obtained from the litigation" are reflected in this amount. Id. (internal quotations omitted).

The Court finds Plaintiff has shown the requested rates for attorneys' fees are reasonable in light of the expertise of counsel, quality of representation, and length of the litigation. The Court will award Plaintiff $45,080.00 in attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff also seeks $1,173.35 in costs which includes a filing fee, process server fee, and deposition transcript fee. Costs may be awarded as well as attorneys' fees under both the FLSA and MMWL. 29 U.S.C. § 216; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 290.527. The Court will award Plaintiff $1,173.35 in costs as requested. [*3]

B.  Defendants' Attorneys' Fees and Costs

Defendants request $8,620.00 in attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the state litigation or in the alternative, $3,230.00 for attorneys' fees and $225.00 in costs for amounts incurred in the federal litigation.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) states a court may order a plaintiff to pay all or part of the costs of a previous action which was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff and based on or including the same claim against the same defendant. Rule 41(d) is intended to "serve as a deterrent to forum shopping and vexatious litigation." Simeone v. First Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 971 F.2d 103, 108 (8th Cir. 1992). A defendant need not show bad faith on the part of a plaintiff to be awarded costs pursuant to Rule 41(d). Rogers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868, 874 (6th Cir. 2000). Although circuits are split on awarding attorneys' fees pursuant to Rule 41(d), the Eighth Circuit has allowed attorneys' fees be awarded. Evans v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 623 F.2d 121, 122 (8th Cir. 1980). Although Defendants seek the total costs of their attorneys' fees in state court or the total costs of their fees in federal court, the Court will only award those costs which are duplicative or otherwise unnecessary if the case had stayed in state court.

Defendants will be awarded $760.00 in attorneys' fees. This includes fees for the time spent reviewing dismissal of the state case, review of the federal petition, and preparation [*4]  to answer the federal petition. This totals 3.8 hours. Defendants seek a reasonable hourly rate of $200.00 per hour. Using the lodestar method to calculate, the total amount is $760.00. The Court will not award costs of $225.00 for a deposition transcript of Garik Allen because Mr. Allen's testimony was necessary in summary judgment briefing and would have been incurred whether or not the case had been refiled.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice